CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaehn v. Lahr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff sustained injuries after falling while repositioning a prefabricated interior staircase at a construction site. The staircase abruptly fell into the stairwell, causing the plaintiff to fall on top of it. Plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for these injuries, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against Lahr Construction Corp., doing business as LeCesse Construction Company, Winchester Construction Corp., Cloverwood Senior Living, Inc., and Rochester Friendly Senior Services. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants and third-party defendants appealed this amended order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the worksite was 'elevated' as per Labor Law § 240 (1) and the defendants' failure to provide necessary safety devices established their liability for the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFall from ElevationLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorksite SafetyStaircase AccidentElevated Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1997

Pryer v. Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp.

Timothy Pryer, a corrections officer, sustained personal injuries after slipping on sand at the Nassau County Corrections Facility, allegedly due to ongoing construction. He filed a lawsuit against the main contractor, Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., and a subcontractor, S&L Concrete Construction Corp., under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted summary judgment motions by the defendants, dismissing Pryer's Labor Law causes of action and the third-party defendant's counterclaims. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court concluding that Pryer was not engaged in activities enumerated in Labor Law §§ 240 or 241(6) and was not injured in a construction area, thus precluding his claims and the related counterclaims.

Personal injurySlip and fallConstruction accidentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewLabor LawSubcontractor liabilityCorrections officerThird-party claimDuty of care
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro Gonzalez & Maria Gomez v. Vatr Construction LLC & All American Roofing & Construction

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a general contractor, VATR Construction, LLC (VC), and a subcontractor, All American Roofing & Construction, in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Roger Alexis Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a roofer, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a roof due to not using safety equipment. The Estate alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se against VC and All American. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither VC nor All American owed a contractual duty or exercised actual control over Gonzalez's work or safety, and that OSHA regulations do not establish negligence per se in this context. Furthermore, the court rejected the Estate's argument that Gonzalez was a third-party beneficiary of upstream contracts, concluding that summary judgment was properly granted on all claims.

Construction AccidentFatal InjuryRooferFall ProtectionSafety EquipmentNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
52
Case No. 04-17-00565-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

David Mora, Texas Sterling Construction Co. A/K/A Texas Crushed Concrete, and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. A/K/A Sterling Delaware Holding Company, Inc. v. Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, Both Individually and as Sole Heirs of the Estate of Martin Valdivia Jr.

This appeal stems from a personal injury lawsuit where two construction workers were injured and one killed when an unsecured toolbox fell from their foreman's trailer. The plaintiffs, Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, sued the foreman David Mora and employers Texas Sterling Construction Co. and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found the driver of the third vehicle not negligent and Texas Sterling grossly negligent, awarding substantial damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions on the course and scope of employment, the defense of sudden emergency, and gross negligence attributable to Texas Sterling through its Corporate Safety Director, José González.

Personal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActCourse and Scope of EmploymentSudden Emergency DefenseEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDamagesLegal Sufficiency
References
55
Case No. W2012-01309-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2013

Andrea Blackwell and Frederick Blackwell, Co-Conservators for the Estate and Person of Robert Blackwell v. Comanche Construction, Inc. and Comanche Construction of Georgia, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal arose from a lawsuit filed by Andrea and Frederick Blackwell, co-conservators for Robert Blackwell, against Comanche Construction, Inc. after Robert sustained debilitating injuries on a job site. Comanche, a subcontractor, argued it was a statutory employer of Blackwell and thus immune from tort liability under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court denied Comanche's summary judgment motion, finding it was not a statutory employer. The Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal, concluding that the threshold issue of whether Ford Construction Company, Blackwell's direct employer, was a subcontractor of Comanche was not addressed by the lower court and was outside the scope of the certified appellate question, thus precluding a decision on the statutory employer issue. The case was therefore remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory EmployerInterlocutory Appeal DismissalRemand OrderSubcontractor DefinitionTort ImmunityCrane Accident LitigationPersonal Injury ClaimsSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2007

Uzar v. Louis P. Ciminelli Construction Co.

Plaintiffs appealed an order that granted summary judgment to defendants Turner Construction Company and Louis P Ciminelli Construction Co., Inc., dismissing their complaint in a personal injury action arising from a construction accident involving Robert Uzar. The Supreme Court's decision was affirmed, with the appellate court determining that Turner, as construction manager, was not liable under Labor Law § 241 (6) because it lacked responsibility for worker safety and control over subcontractors. Additionally, Ciminelli was found not liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 as it did not have supervisory control over the plaintiff's work or create the dangerous condition. The appellate court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that Turner acted as a general contractor or agent of the County, and similarly found no triable issue of fact regarding Ciminelli's liability. Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ClaimsContractor LiabilityConstruction ManagerWorker SafetySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cueto v. Hamilton Plaza Co.

Victor Cueto, a construction worker, was injured when a ceiling fell on him at a construction site. After settling his workers’ compensation claim against his employer, Arkay Contracting, Cueto filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendant, Reckson Construction and Development, LLC, initiated a third-party action against Arkay for common-law indemnification and contribution. Special Trades Contracting and Construction Trust, Arkay’s workers’ compensation administrator, moved to dismiss the third-party claim, asserting that Cueto had not suffered a “grave injury” as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would bar such claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the third-party complaint sufficiently alleged a “grave injury” when afforded a liberal construction.

grave injuryworkers compensation lawindemnificationcontributionpersonal injuryconstruction accidentCPLR 3211(a)(7)motion to dismissthird-party actionemployer liability
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

405 Bedford Avenue Development Corp. v. New Metro Construction, Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal in a declaratory judgment action where 405 Bedford Avenue Corp. sought indemnification from New Metro Construction, Ltd., and Russo Construction, LLC, for an underlying personal injury action brought by Santos Hernandez, an employee of Russo. Hernandez was injured at a construction site owned by 405 Bedford, leading to a Labor Law claim. The Supreme Court denied New Metro and Russo's motion for summary judgment, which argued they had no contractual obligation to indemnify. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to New Metro and Russo. The reversal was based on the absence of a written indemnification agreement, a requirement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and the prior finding that Roth & Sons (New Metro's predecessor) was not liable in the underlying action. The case was remitted for a judgment declaring that New Metro and Russo are not obligated to indemnify 405 Bedford.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryWritten ContractConstruction AccidentLabor LawAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 19,881 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational